More loose impediment lunacy!
Picture the following:
Jody’s ball has
come to rest in a pool of water in an otherwise dry water hazard. As she walks
towards her ball she picks up a pine cone lying some 5 metres from her ball and
throws it into the adjacent copse of trees (she was caring for the course and
the interests of other competitors following).
Jody then
retrieves her ball and proceeds to take relief from the hazard.
Jody’s
fellow-competitor, Susie, advises Jody that she may have incurred a two stroke
penalty, and in support of her contention quotes from memory the following Decision:
13-4/17
Loose Impediment Removed from Water Hazard; Player Then
Decides Not to Play from Hazard
Q. A player whose ball was in a water hazard removed a loose
impediment from the hazard. He then decided not to play from the hazard. He
proceeded under Rule 26-1. Was the player absolved from the penalty incurred
under Rule 13-4 for removing the loose impediment in view of the fact that he
subsequently invoked Rule 26-1 and did not play his ball from the hazard?
A. No.
There seems
little doubt from the unequivocal and uncompromising tone of the answer that The Castle would be adamant that Jody
falls within the purview of this Decision.
However, it
is difficult to see how either Jody or the poor chap in the Decision should be
penalised as neither of them played a stroke from within the hazard. Rule 13-4 is quite clear that the only
prohibition (relevant to these situations) on touching or moving a loose
impediment in a hazard occurs when this is done ‘before making a stroke at a
ball that is in the hazard’: which neither player did.
On a broader
front, one must ask the obvious question:
If Jody had no intention of playing her ball from the hazard what
possible relevance could the pine cone have had to her further playing of the
hole?
Is there
someone who can provide us with an answer to this question?
If not, one
can only ask why it is that we have to endure such nonsense in the game of
golf.
It is
definitely time to eradicate the distinction between loose impediments through-the-green
and in hazards, and thereby eliminate the need for dodgy decisions such as
this.
